In fact, although I think the fragmentation issue is a storm in a teacup, I do find the follow up article objectionable.

It basically makes the case that lower end devices (which are typically purchased by less advantaged consumers) don't 'deserve' an update.

It's this same mentality that attempts to justify those of lower income receiving poorer education and healthcare and it's just wrong.

(Note that this is not a comment or criticism of Android. As I said, I don't think there is really a huge issue with the lack of Android updates on some devices. I am just criticizing the follow-up article for basically saying 'it's ok to screw the consumers who didn't buy the expensive stuff'.)

The value of human worth and entitlement/rights are not compatible with the value of products and paid services. So your argument likening cheap goods with human worth are fundamentally wrong.

All people deserve equal treatment and opportunity within the system, that is what "all men are created equal" is all about. We all have equal opportunity and worth as an individual (This does not entitle us to material possession, we must obtain that through our own actions. Unfortunately the avarice and corruption in the corporate, government and financial arenas have removed much of this equal opportunity and even how the system works for the majority. This is a problem and must be addressed, but I digress.)

Removing the argument that material objects of various worth are the same as people leaves you with only one argument. That cheap = expensive.

You are basically arguing that a cheap $0.50 screwdriver from the bargain bin at a dollar store deserves the same no questions asked lifetime replacement warranty as a $50 Snap On screwdriver. I am sorry but that is unrealistic. The cheap Android phone were created to sell to the budget market. The teens, those that normally wouldn't buy a smartphone, and those without the means to afford the higher priced ones. They are made cheaply with lower end/priced parts with less development work. After its design and software are finalized, the company stops devoting resources to the device unless major bugs arise. If they continued to provide software development resources to the device, the price would increase, negating the whole point of its existence.

Yes it is true that those with less money buy the cheap phones because they really can't afford the higher end phones. My question is... Why does that matter? To say it does is to bring social views into software and development support/technical issues.

The value of human worth and entitlement/rights are not compatible with the value of products and paid services.

And yet, somehow, we do count them within one and the same system, using the same units... :/

"All people deserve equal treatment and opportunity within the system, that is what 'all men are created equal' is all about" is a story for good children, I'm afraid... and, it's curious how the place cherishing this myth so strongly is also the one at the bottom of social mobility among developed countries (the actual measure of this - roughly, how much of your end results depends on "our own actions" / work / effort, and how much on the random accident of being born into proper amount of money and social connections; BTW - the popularly disparaged in said place, so called "nanny states" are at the top)

Unfortunately the avarice and corruption in the corporate, government and financial arenas have removed much of this equal opportunity

The avarice and corruption of humans removes this (the easier if they believe such myths about their place as above - just another product to sell)

And you know, there's really nothing "premium" about the iPhone - a mass produced commodity product assembled in Chinese factories.

It basically makes the case that lower end devices (which are typically purchased by less advantaged consumers) don't 'deserve' an update.
It's this same mentality that attempts to justify those of lower income receiving poorer education and healthcare and it's just wrong.

Well this is slightly awkward... and yet you very much cherish (and/or flaunt their financials from time to time, which now would turn out to be tasteless) a company which openly stated, on few occasions, how it desires to ignore such "lesser people" with less money - even one which tried to freeload (as we know from their 1bil settlement with Nokia) on R&D of those who do target those people / benefit them greatly.